Posted on 11/20/2014 7:52:40 PM PST by Stepan12
In the past, I've advised against trying to impeach the reprobate-in-chief. It seemed futile and self-defeating.
I've changed my mind.
Whether or not it succeeds, it's the only way for Republicans to show that they're serious about stopping a president who's like a car without brakes barreling down a mountainside – smashing the Constitution and running over representative government.
Congressional Republicans, led by the Indomitable John Boehner and Stalwart Mitch McConnell, are said to be considering such drastic measures as – have mercy! – suing Obama.
Other suggested remedies include denying funding to programs which would oversee the amnesty and refusing to pass a continuing resolution on spending.
McConnell, who's already said he won't use the power of the purse to counter the presidential diktat, says that if Obama treats Congress like an advisory board here, he will "poison the well." Such nancy-boy talk must make the president quake in his jackboots
But why impeachment?
Do I expect the GOP to go for it? Be real. That would take brains and guts. Republicans are Republicans. Even if a bill of impeachment passed the House, it would take a miracle comparable to Hillary Clinton being crowned Miss America and Nancy Pelosi Dancing With the Stars to get two-thirds of the Senate to vote to remove him from office.
Still, conservatives – and the few Congressional Republicans with kishkas – should push for it, if only to show the world that we're not all big weenies.
But didn't the Clinton impeachment really hurt the GOP? That's the media spin. In fact, in the next election, Republicans lost a handful seats in Congress (while maintaining their majority in the House), but won the White House. Even if the electoral repercussions are severe, sometimes you have to take a bullet for the Constitution.
For the record, Clinton's impeachable offense was small potatoes compared with what Obama has in mind. Clinton committed a felony – lying under oath. Obama is plotting a full frontal assault on the Constitution's separation of powers.
Jonathan Turley, a liberal law professor at George Washington University, says of the move, "What the president is suggesting is tearing at the very fabric of the Constitution." Turley explains: "We have a separation of powers to give us balance. It's there to protect liberty. It's there to keep any branch from assuming so much control that they become a threat to liberty."
In an attempt to rationalize his power-grab, the president says that as soon as Congress gives him an "immigration reform" bill that's exactly what he wants, he'll sign it and tear up his executive order. That's like a rapist telling his victim that as soon as she agrees to have sex with him, he'll stop assaulting her.
Who else thinks amnesty by executive order for five million illegal aliens is unconstitutional? The president. Barack Obama Model 2013 said such an action would be "violating our laws" and "difficult to defend legally,"
In answer to demands from open-borders fanatics, Obama explained: "The problem is, is that I'm president of the United States. I'm not the emperor of the United States. My job is to execute laws."
Enter the Emperor O, who's about to execute the Constitution.
In his 2006 autobiography, Obama conceded that an influx of illegals depressed "the wages of blue-collar Americans" and "put a strain on an already overburdened safety net." Also that "there is no denying many blacks share the same anxieties as many whites about the wave of illegal immigration flooding our Southern border." They may even more anxious, with the black unemployment rate more than double that of whites (11.4% to 5.3%). Juan from Guatemala isn't going to take the job of John the investment counselor.
Any amnesty will keep those waves crashing on our shores. It's no coincidence that shortly after the president suspended enforcement action against the "Dreamers," the latest flood from Central America started (300,000 this year alone). The more we accommodate those already here, the more we encourage others to come.
The Center for Immigration Studies discloses that the planned amnesty will include 36,007 hardcore criminals – among them those convicted of homicide, aggravated assault, kidnapping and rape. And the next wave will bring in more criminals, terrorists and low-skilled workers.
The American people know this.
An August Rasmussen Report poll showed 62% of likely voters opposed the proposed executive amnesty. Only 26% supported unilateral presidential action.
Other polls this summer showed: 65% favor faster deportation (CBS News), 70% said illegal immigration "threatened traditional American beliefs" and 75% think illegal aliens place a "burden on our economy" (both Reuters). In a FOX News exit poll, when voters were asked what was the most important issue facing the country, illegal immigration was third, after the economy and health care.
And in the only poll that ultimately counts, on November 4, Oregon voters repealed a law giving drivers licenses to border-jumpers by a vote of 67.4%. This is the only time voters have had a chance to pass on such absurdities, and liberal Oregon rejected it by a landslide.
Congressional Republicans seem to think they're going to serve for life. If they ignore their base, it will be a very short life. As a campaign issue, "We're not Obama" is good for another 18 months, max.
Since 2008, the president's party has lost 13 Senate seats (soon to be 14 when Landrieu loses the runoff) and 69 seats in the House of Representatives – a massive repudiation of his leftist ideology.
The Republicans who replaced them weren't sent to Washington to write sonnets on the glories of bipartisanship while Obama dismantles the Constitution.
The GOP base (which increasingly includes women and independents) is livid. When President George W. Bush tried to push an amnesty through Congress in 2006, angry callers melted down the congressional switchboard.
If Obama is allowed to get away with making himself two-thirds of the federal government, what's next? Perhaps he'll write his own budget, instead of waiting for Congress to send him one.
Say Congress does put restrictions on appropriations for ICE. If Obama can change the legislative process by executive decree, why can't he change the appropriations process the same way?
Maybe he'll make the five million amnestied (with the stroke of the executive pen) citizens, in time for the 2016 election.
In every election, the Grand Old Party counts on the middle class being so terrified by the Party of Plunder that they'll rush to embrace Republicans regardless of what GOP candidates say or do.
But Middle American fear of the Democrats is an account that can't be drawn on indefinitely.
If in the next election, the Republican base decides the party didn't do diddly to keep Obama from creating the most dangerous precedent imaginable (and continuing to erode our national identity in the process) well – you remember the 4 million Republican voters who stayed home in 2012?
The Whigs are lonely and would enjoy company in the dead parties burial ground.
precisely, the GOP has known that he was going to do this for quite some time now, and they should have made it perfectly clear that IF he was going to ignore the rule of law, was going to violate his oath of office, his oath to uphold the laws of this country, that the GOP would begin IMMEDIATE impeachment procedures and keep at it until they take over the house and senate, and remove him from office for dereliction of duty and for betraying the American people!
[[Right! We have to show that we’re serious about the Constitution and the character of the person in the White House.]]
The problem is that the GOP are NOT serious about the constitution- IF they were, then the president would NEVER have dared do what he did today and in days past when he also violated the constitution and spied on conservatives and violated religion via HC mandates etc- He has violated the constitution several times now and the GOP can apparently only muster up a ‘tsk tsk mr president- you hadn’t aughta do that you know’
When you have a president that has been threatening / boasting for almost 2 weeks that he was going to make a new version of the existing law, by granting amnesty to millions of illegals, and the opposition party in meetings tells Obama that not to worry we are not going to shut the government down and we have people on Fox saying don’t even talk impeachment. This is on the establishment republicans because they allowed him to do this by not pushing back when this first leaked out. This is very dangerous. The rule of law took one in the heart tonight.
I have been and am so unhappy with Obama and his minions that words cannot convey how I feel. I do, however, live in the real world. The House could impeach, but you need 66 votes in the senate to convict. That simply will not happen. If the House impeached Obama, there would be an enormous backlash. And we would probably get Hillary or Liz as president. Just the thought curdles my soul. We need to fight but not impeach.
[[This is on the establishment republicans because they allowed him to do this by not pushing back when this first leaked out. This is very dangerous. The rule of law took one in the heart tonight.]]
Absolutely it did and I blame the republicans just as m uch as the left for this travesty/betrayal- the GOP had a perfect opportunity to let the president know that they took the constitution seriously and that they WOULD NOT STAND for a president who ignores the constitution, yet they quietly ALLOWED him to get away with it and seriously undermined the rule of law- and l;ike you said, set a dangerous precedent that the left, and the current president fully intent to exploit now that they KNOW they CAN get away with it!
[[If the House impeached Obama, there would be an enormous backlash.]]
Not IF you got the American people on your side, the republicans could have been making the case all along that this president has been overstepping his authority, and they could have informing the people that we have laws in this country and that they need to be followed- that even they and the president are duty bound to follow, and that failure to do so should result is losing their job, just like our failure to follow law would result in our losing our jobs as well- they should have been informing the people that NOONE is above the law, and that anyone who thought they were had a rude awakening coming to them.
The gop ‘could have’ gotten the American people o n their side, and could have been so overwhelming that the president would have had no choice BUT to abide by the law or risk his job, however, they chose NOT to
total agreement here
The House should have Articles of Impeachment presented to it by tomorrow morning in a sane world
How do you know that what you wrote. Where’s the proof?
I hear that often on Fox and from the liberal republicans.
Either you defend the constitution or this republican party of fear.
I think those supporting the party politics here are very wrong so, I disagree.
-> The House should have Articles of Impeachment presented to it by tomorrow morning in a sane world.
Amen. I wonder what the Imperial OBama will do next with his EO. And, then watch people scream but it will be too late.
Elephant in the room ping.
It’s complicated, but I believe if you
IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH
read between the lines and search very, very
IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH
hard, you’ll figure out what to do. At least, give
IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH
it a try.
What do you suppose would happen if the Republicans actually really did look into Obama’s past?
I agree - I too believe impeachment proceedings should be started immediately.
I will NOT vote for a Republican who will NOT act to impeach a lawless President.
Obama needs to be held accountable. Why have a Congress when he can unilaterally change our laws with a stroke of the pen?
There is a such a thing as separation of powers, stupid. And the oath to uphold our Constitution, which apparently means nothing to the President.
Time to get the ball rolling.
Come January, we need 13 defectors. Any guesses on how to get them?
I don’t care if Democrats go along or not.
The President has to be stopped and impeachment is a means of last resort.
I think we have reached the point where we have to break the glass. After all, to keep our Republic, we must stop Obama from defying Congress and the American people.
Its not about criminalizing policy differences. Its about sanctioning the President for committing an unconstitutional act.
That’s what we have Congress for. Or do we want him to assume dictatorial powers? That is the issue of our time.
The stakes for our nation have never been higher.
It's either 13 Democrats or the Joint Chiefs.
Actually, maybe an adverse Supreme Court judgement would work. That might provide a justification for the Chiefs to act if Zero were to ignore the Court's judgement.
If we're going to be a banana republic, there is a guide from banana-land: 2009 Honduran coup d'état
I believe you are exactly correct.
It’s not a waste of time to impeach. It will bring the issue to the attention of the low information voter . It will teach people who need to be taught . You lead, you don’t quit before anybody marches with you. It will secure the Good guys place in history if all else fails.
<> It will teach people who need to be taught. <>
So true. Not one in a hundred Americans understand what constitutes a high crime.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.